LAWS(BOM)-1998-1-111

SHANKAR DINKAR BHOITE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 07, 1998
Shankar Dinkar Bhoite Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE , Mr.Mirza, learned APP waives service. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner and two others were charged under Section 302 of IPC and were tried by the Sessions Court, Satara in Sessions Case No.90 of 1974. By judgment and order dated 28th August 1975 the Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under Section 304-A while the other two accused tried in the same sessions case were acquitted. The petitioner was directed to be released on probation on execution of a bond for three years. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court, the State Government preferred Criminal Appeal No.311 of 1976 before this Court. On 20th February 1981 the appeal filed by the State Government was allowed and the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 and sentenced for life imprisonment. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing Appeal No.323 of 1981. The appeal came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27th July 1992. Since then the petitioner is undergoing the imprisonment of life in Yerwada Central Prison.

(3.) BY this petition the petitioner is seeking premature release from prison on completion of 16 years of imprisonment including remissions. According to the petitioner his case is governed by clause 3(a) of the Guidelines contained in the Circular dated 16th November 1978 issued by the State Government under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application is opposed by the State mainly on the ground that since the petitioner's conviction is after insertion of Section 433A in the Criminal Procedure Code by Amendment Act of 1978, the old guidelines contained in Circular dated 16th November, 1978 will not be applicable to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner will be liable to be released as per the new guidelines only after completion of 24 years of imprisonment including the remissions. In the alternative it is contended that the case of the petitioner is governed by clause 3(b) of the guidelines contained in Circular dated 16th November 1978 and, therefore, he can be released only after completion of 18 years of imprisonment including remissions.